Punishing Britain with a tough Brexit will harm everyone

Ros Taylor

October 10th, 2016

Punishing Britain with a tough Brexit will harm everyone

The mood against Britain in Europe is hardening, with French president François Hollande calling for a tough Brexit to deter other states from leaving. But, argues Stefan Kooths, this is an enormous mistake. The uncertainty will harm everyone involved in negotiations. If Britons are to be convinced of the EU’s benefits – and perhaps one day decide to rejoin – we should keep as many bridges as possible between the UK and the EU. That probably means giving up the principle of freedom of movement of labour.

Reconfiguring the relationship between the UK and the EU is a complex undertaking. Delays, procrastination and uncertainty are bad for both sides. We need a rapid decision on the fundamental issues at stake – and a decision by the EU to behave as constructively as possible toward the UK would be hugely beneficial.

It would send out a positive signal and lift a large part of the uncertainty long before the negotiations are concluded. Economic concerns are not the only reason to adopt this strategy. It would also benefit EU stability, which over the long term can only be built on the genuine advantages of belonging to the club, rather than on a belligerent great-power policy. Lastly, as many economic bridges across the English Channel as possible should be retained so that the next generation of Britons may find their way back to the EU.

It would reflect very badly on the EU if it sought to punish the UK in order to deter other countries from leaving. A club’s appeal lies in its ability to provide members with opportunities that, by their very nature, can only be achieved collectively. Threatening members who want to leave with tough sanctions doesn’t fit that description. The more intently the EU focuses on genuine Union-wide collective assets, the clearer the benefits of membership become. As a cornerstone of the EU’s architecture, the principle of subsidiarity (Article 5 (3) of the Treaty on EU) directly serves this end. It stabilises the Community, by avoiding the (otherwise correct) impression that matters that could be dealt with equally well or better at the national level are decided in Brussels. It’s time to stop vilifying those who insist on observing the principle of subsidiarity by describing them as “anti-Europe”. Rather than being a braking mechanism deployed by Eurosceptics, subsidiarity is a tried-and-tested method of stabilising vertically structured polities.

The British government’s plans to restrict the freedom of movement of labour for EU citizens without giving up access to the single market for goods and capital has been widely criticised as “cherry-picking”. This view is popular, but wrong. It does the notion of integration a disservice: depicting the free movement of goods and capital as “cherries”, with the free movement of labour as the bitter pill to be swallowed in return, will increase resentment of economic migrants. In any case, from an economic standpoint there is no compelling link between free access to the labour market and the rest of the single market.

Free trade is not a bargaining chip. It’s in everyone’s interests

The idea that free trade is a “cherry” also provides a deep insight into an attitude that is still infected with mercantilist fallacies. Free trade is not a concession; it is in everyone’s common interest. Just because the EU is relatively more important as a trading partner for the UK than vice versa does not change that fact. The argument that the EU-27 should give the British a good deal because they (the EU-27) run an export surplus with the UK is similarly flawed. This again reveals mercantilist thinking, which inevitably – and needlessly – foments international conflict. The benefits of trade cannot be measured by looking at export surpluses because the flows of trade in both directions are advantageous for all those involved. In addition, the free movement of capital enables trade flows to take place at different times, which creates a further advantage – again, for all the parties involved.

Important as it is to eliminate trade barriers within the EU single market, the benefits of the free exchange of goods and services do not stop at the EU’s external border. The internal perspective should not blind us to what the rest of the world has to offer. Unfortunately, this kind of emancipated openness to the world is not much in evidence in the EU. While free trade within the single market is now largely beyond dispute, free trade with the rest of the world is still regarded with suspicion on many sides. This provides fertile ground for vested protectionist interests.

Obvious examples include the EU’s agricultural policy and the widespread resistance to new free trade agreements. And while the European Commission has rightly cracked down on the industrial policies of individual member states which favour “national champions”, the advocacy of “European champions” is still common practice. Opening up markets to boost competition would be the right general policy – also at the EU level – rather than using industrial policy to protect individual industries. All too often, mercantilist thinking ultimately prejudices the EU’s own external relations. That is precisely what is at risk of backfiring now on the participants in the Brexit process.

Viewing free market access as a privilege in order to use it as a knockout bargaining chip would represent crude big-power policies and harm everyone. Free access to the single market for goods, services and capital does, of course, require acceptance of the rules of non-discrimination. These rules apply to all players regardless of their nationality. Having a say on these rules is a genuine club benefit of EU membership. For that reason alone, the UK is already accepting a high price for exiting, as will become apparent over time. Any appearance of imposing additional penalties would belittle the EU by unnecessarily ignoring the true value of its club assets.

When the EU Commission performed a U-turn shortly after the Brexit vote by declaring the CETA trade deal with Canada a “mixed” agreement, it further reduced the value of club membership. Since this means all the national parliaments and even some regional parliaments now need to be involved, the chances of a successful outcome for CETA are likely to be markedly lower. The decision also makes the EU less attractive as a negotiating partner for other regions of the world. As a result, an established EU competence – which could otherwise have been leveraged to open up international markets – is diminished. The CETA decision, which was presumably intended to appease forces critical of the EU, also dilutes the principle of subsidiarity. In this case, however, it does so in the reverse direction because it undermines EU foreign trade policy as a core function of an economic union. As such, it again exposes general trade rules to the influence of nationalist and protectionist interests.

Trade brought the EU together, and trade could rescue it

Viewing the EU as weak as long as it “only” promotes trade is to misunderstand the major role played by economic relations in peaceful development. It was no coincidence that an economic route was used to achieve internal pacification of the free, Western part of the European continent after 1945 (in the forerunners of the EU and in EFTA). The reasons that made it the right approach back then apply equally today. Through economic interaction – i.e. multifarious exchange processes – people come to view their business partner as a promoter of their own wellbeing. Exchange is always voluntary since it only comes about if both sides regard it as beneficial. In hardly any other form of human interaction is the reward for collaboration as conspicuous as it is in trade; there is a reason why we talk about “trading partners” rather than “trading opponents”. For the same reason, both parties invariably thank each other after concluding a deal.

As a result, free trade provides a profoundly pacifying basis for human coexistence across national borders. Ultimately, it gives rise to peaceful societies comprising networks made up of a huge number of individual relationships. Social cohesion is not something that can be ordained from above; it is the product of an evolutionary process. Free economic exchange is the best basis for this process, because the shared benefits bring people together and create lasting connections. The consensuses that emerge over time facilitate the creation of formal institutions, which provide a shortcut to reducing transaction costs. These institutions must follow the consensus, though, and not vice versa.

However, if free economic exchange is blocked for any significant period of time, pricing and production structures become aligned with this reality. These include – not least – labour markets and wage structures. Despite the general deadweight loss, benefits for the winners of protectionism flourish in the shadow of customs and migration barriers. For them, a sudden transition to free forms of economic activity has a disruptive effect because their protected positions in terms of markets and income are eroded virtually overnight. As a result, this kind of ad hoc liberalisation can trigger massive intra-state conflicts that last for many years, in addition to enabling new forms of cross-border collaboration. This is not caused by the free market, however, but by the obstacles that preceded it.

Like a dam wall, the barriers to free economic activity have impeded what would otherwise have been a gradual process of adjustment. If the dam then bursts, there is usually too little time for the parties involved to adapt to the new conditions. Winners and losers are dragged into a struggle for distribution that acts as the final social poison emitted by the mouldering corpse of protectionism. Accordingly, the speed of transition to a free common market can play a role in determining the degree of broad acceptance among the public.

By creating the EU, the member states have established an entity through which they can safeguard their shared common interests. Important common interests are expressed in the four basic freedoms of the internal market. This also applies to the freedom of movement of people. It is an abstract advantage for every citizen of a member state to be able to freely choose where to work within the EU – and only abstract advantages of this kind can establish a common interest. The specific exercise of this freedom of choice is bound to change scarcity relationships, otherwise there would be no benefits attached to wider choice. This also means, however, that there may be winners and losers, despite the anonymous net advantage. If the core consensus in a member state is not strong enough to accept these effects or ensure that they are mitigated by way of compensation payments, the above-mentioned post-protectionist tensions spill over into the political arena.

In the case of the UK, support for Brexit appears to have been strongest among those who regard themselves – rightly or wrongly – as losers when it comes to the free movement of labour, either through higher housing prices or lower wages. This vote suggests it would be a mistake to seek to negotiate free movement of labour at all costs. Such an attempt would merely result in a less mutually beneficial outcome than would otherwise be possible. If, on the other hand, a constructive agreement is reached on everything that enjoys consensus support on both sides of the English Channel, much can be achieved. Assuming that the principle of reciprocity applies, then over time those in the UK who want to reinstate free movement of labour will prevail, since it is also in the best shared interests of UK citizens. If a majority of voters in a member state temporarily sees this differently, then this part of the integration process clearly needs more time.

That would not be the end of the EU, even if some other member states were to restrict the freedom of movement of workers as a response to a Brexit agreement built on maximum cooperation. In politics, many things are done that economists consider wrong. The only counter-measure is insight through compelling arguments – not pressure, and definitely no “all-or-nothing” ultimatums. Multiple speeds are a tried-and-tested means to set integration processes in motion. The slower ones can gradually learn from the faster ones how abstract interests in the common good actually translate into better economic development. Insights of this type do not happen overnight. As soon as they take hold, however, the drive for integration becomes irresistible. And that is precisely what distinguishes a successful club: irresistibility, through obvious mutual benefit.

This post represents the views of the author and not those of LSE Brexit, nor the LSE.

Professor Stefan Kooths is head of the Forecasting Center of the Kiel Institute for the World Economy (IfW). He also teaches economics at the Business and Information Technology School (BiTS) in Berlin.

Share this:

About the author

Ros Taylor

6 Comments

As europhile Italian in UK I’ve come to the conclusion that EU is better off without UK. In the past few months UK has persistently insulted EU institutions and citizens disregarding even out families defined bargaining chips. As of today I still don’t know if my family can stay or has to go. The climax was the obnoxious Conservative Party Conference laced with barefaced xenophobia.
UK has acted against EU comon values, wants to repeal EUHR convention and ECJ.
This is a country that doesn’t want to be in the club but rather undermine it. Hence no thanks. EU is a better place without UK.

This is a somewhat technical argument. However it’s more conciliatory tone, as opposed to the hardline comments of President Hollande recently, is to be welcomed. Professor Kooths emphasises that the EU27 and the UK need to approach Brexit in a conciliatory manner.

Hard positions on either side, in the political or the economic sphere, will only make things worse. Professor Kooths, as one of Germany’s top economists, reinforces this point.

Well, the brits want off the EU… Fine, I say, let them go. It really makes no difference to me or many of my fellow citizens. Only sad thing is my 20yr old daughter decided ( like many others innocent) one year ago to study law at UCL. Despite my fierce opposition. And now, this weird ideea of brexit sets her future back. This is really upsetting and for this reason (among others), I say brits are kinda second hand citizens, and they HAVE to go out. No matter where they go, and I don’t care. It’s exactly what they think about the rest of EU. I’ll be laughing when they will be all alone on their islands, and all those proud brits will have to work on trash/ garbage collection, cleaning sewers, etc. Then will they understand that all those nasty jobs they hate/ignore were carried out by somebody else on their behalf and on their benefit. Then they will learn humbleness and find out that no matter were you were born, if you’re human, you have to act like one. If you’re not… well, that’s what zoos are for. And that will the island be. Looking forward to it…

With the exception of Joe Smith the other commenters appear not to have understood the article. As a British citizen I’d like to point out:

1) Nearly half of my fellow citizens voted to remain in the EU. Please do not tar us all with the same brush.

2) Why are you focused only on the belligerent rhetoric of the UK conservative government, and ignoring the belligerent rhetoric from François Hollande and Jean-Claude Juncker – rhetoric that did as much to seal the outcome of the brexit vote as anything said by Mr Farage ? There is blame to be shared for the current sorry state of Anglo-EU relations, just as there is benefit to be had from not continuing to stoke those tensions.

I would ask everyone to rise above the belligerence and brazenly self serving politics that is taking place between certain politicians in the UK and in the EU and consider the message of the author that it is not in anyone’s interest to be punishing the UK for the vote, nor does it show the EU in any sort of good light to be seen to have to punish those leaving in order to keep other countries in line.

Integration at multiple speeds would be the solution if 1) it would not create uncertainty for foreign workers and their families, who could never be sure that the next election won’t vote them out of the country, and if 2) self-serving political campaigns that try to fuel and stir up xenophobic feelings wouldn’t exist.
I think the latter should be viewed as a negative externality that can in any society potentially affect the perceived cost/benefit ratio of open labor markets.
If such campaigns and their effect on political decision-making could be banned under WTO rules, effectively excluding them from a list of potentially more legitimate reasons to opt for temporary protection of domestic labor markets, then I would feel more comfortable with a flexible approach to European integration as a consequence of Brexit.
Thus, the term “Britain cherry-picking on EU rules” is indeed misleading. The true concern of the EU-27 should be if and to what extend individual politicians in any EU country (and institution) can be allowed to get away with populist, self-serving campaigns at the expense of otherwise mutually beneficial economic integration.

We use cookies on this site to understand how you use our content, and to give you the best browsing experience. To accept cookies, click continue. To find out more about cookies and change your preferences, visit our Cookie Policy.